Thursday, September 11, 2014
Who exactly are we fighting?
My grandfather's generation had December 7, 1941. My parents generation had November 22, 1963.
We have September 11, 2001.
I recall that day and how it seemed that everything changed. I was up and watching the Today show, waiting for my brother and my cousin to pick me up. We were going to go fishing.
I couldn't change the channel. When they broke in at first and reported a plane hitting the World Trade Center I thought that it was a 'New York' story. Sure, a plane hit the tower but how bad could it be? The news never stopped though. When they showed video of it and it became apparent just how bad it was.
Just about the time that I got my head around how big of a plane it must have been.... how many people died and how many were now in danger... the other plane hit. This time they had video and it became immediately obvious; This was intentional. This was an attack.
Bastards. BASTARDS!!
That's how the San Francisco's Examiner put it in their special edition. BASTARDS!
That's also how I felt. But my feelings weren't one dimensional. I was hurt, I was scared, I was angry, I was mournful. It honestly felt like everything was different. How could someone attack us like that? Did this mean that we were at war? And as the news continued... the Pentagon, evacuating the Capital, putting attack aircraft in the skies, the plane crashing in Pennsylvania, the President somewhere unknown on Air Force One... I kept wondering when it would stop. Were there going to be more planes used as weapons? Were we going to shoot passenger airlines down? Were there going to be more traditional suicide bombings?
The aftermath of that day is almost more disconcerting. Yes, the attacks stopped, but we were going to go to war. Or at least the closest that our modern times allow for war. Congress voted to give the President unprecedented powers to go after those who dared attack our beautiful nation. At the time I was completely behind it. Damn Right! Go Get Em! Wipe Them Off The Face Of This Earth!
But there's the rub. There's the problem. Who were we fighting? Sure, we invaded Afghanistan, but we were fighting them only because they were harboring those we believed to be responsible. How exactly do you defeat a terrorist organization. It's not like anybody believed that there would be a peaceful signing of a treaty aboard a battle ship or in some anonymous conference room.
To this day we're still technically fighting that 'War'. 13 years. We beat the UK in less time in the Revolutionary war. We beat them again in less time in the war of 1812. We beat 'the south' in less time during the Civil War. We beat the Germans twice in less time during the World Wars. We stopped fighting in Korea and Vietnam in less time.
But we haven't beaten 'them' in 13 years.
I listened to an episode of Radio Lab recently called "60 Words". The episode covers the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) that congress gave the president after 9/11. That episode put into focus so much of what I've been feeling about this 'War' in recent years. The gist of it is that the AUMF gave the president the authorization to use whatever force is needed to go after "those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States". That authorization has let us go to war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somlia, Yemen and many other places.
But we're only fighting "those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States" right? Well.... no. We're fighting Al Qaeda who are directly responsible, but we're also fighting any organisation that is aligned with them. It's even being used as the legal reasoning that we can go in and fight ISIL in Iraq and Syria.
Let's be clear. ISIL is bad. VERY bad. But what have they done against us? Did THEY attack us on 9/11? If not, then why are using the authorization to go after those who are responsible to go after them? It's just another open ended, no possible way to 'win' or 'end' war that we're participating in.
In the Radio Podcast they had a militry representative say that this operation would more than likely take 20 to 30 years. That's in ADDITION to what we've already done. 43 fucking years of war?
After 9/11 I wanted Revenge, and that was wrong. I also wanted Justice, and I believe that that was right. But what we're doing now and in the foreseeable future is neither Revenge nor is it Justice. It's just War for War's sake. I'm not saying that we should do nothing about ISIL. But what we should do is make a case for fighting them, make definable goals, have Congress and other interested nations (NATO, the UN, the Arab League...) step in and agree to fight them, and most of all have an end point. Define here and now how we'll STOP fighting.
I want the country that I had on September 10, 2001 back. And so long as we're going to fight 'Terrorism' I'll never have that country back.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I had the day off, and called up my guitarist to go out and eat lunch at a Mandarin Buffet. I was convinced we should go on as we usually did. Why shouldn't we? Israel had fighting in their streets everyday, along with lots of other places. Hell, we'd been attacked by foreign powers on our shores many times, as the British burned down the White House, Pearl Harbor right before WWII. The amount of places we had a military presence and disrupted the lives of many people in their own homeland made me feel like we shouldn't make this too much of a big deal.
ReplyDeleteWe never even went after the main culprits because they were in ruling power in Saudi Arabia. We ended up poking our heads into Iraq, technically the most modern of all the states in the Middle east, as it was run by a moderate Sunni (they are the democrats of the Muslim world) Mostly because our president had a daddy thing ( I can defeat a guy my dad couldn't! YEEHA!) and our Veep wanted to rake in millions of dollars in war supplies and post-war contracts for the liberated state . and our representatives gave the administration carte blanche AND the Patriot ACT! All so we could destabilize the area (got rid of the main opposition to the massively conservative terrorists like Isil and such.
The war between the sides there have gone of for 800 plus years. I can't imagine how leaders at the time thought they could get in and get out in some sort of quick way, and even more, that we'd be considered liberators.
OK Breathe Dee, breathe! Sorry started to go off on a rant! LOL
Oh don’t even get me started on Iraq. I’m constantly wondering if it wasn’t for 9/11, would we as a nation allowed the President to go in there? Now a days it’s easy to look back and see just how batshit crazy that was. We’re going to invade and completely destabilize/destroy a nation because we have the thinnest and flimsiest of evidence that they are trying to make a nuke? We already knew that they had and used chemical weapons. Even if they were making a nuke, why would we go in there and tear it all down?
DeleteBut as a nation we were high on the ‘Murica bandwagon. war War WAR! Yes, we were taking down a regime that hated us. But who exactly were we liberating? Oh that’s right, other people that hated us. By simply going in and attacking them we were making more people that hate us. And what would have happened if we hadn’t distracted ourselves with Iraq? Maybe we would have found more success in Afghanistan. Maybe we would have done a better job of finding and dealing with bin Laden. Maybe, just MAYBE, we could have had a victory big enough to satisfy the American population and therefore ended this 13 year charade of a ‘War on Terror’.
But the past is set in concrete. How do we move forward? How do we stop? This whole ‘Murica bandwagon has over a decade of momentum. I’d guess that for every person who is silently sick and tired of living this way there is another far more vocal person that says ‘GO BEAT THE LIVING SHIT OUT OF THOSE DAMNED TERRORISTS!’.
sigh